Why Dakota? (The origin of aircraft names in general now)

Seems unlikely. According to Thunder & Lightnings (‘cos it’s a lot quicker than going to look at some books) the Sea Vixen had been in squadron service for 3 years before the Buccaneer was officially named.

Don’t have sources to hand but this is what I’ve heard.

The Sea Vixen was still being referred to as the DH110 as late as 1957, just before it went into service, while the name Buccaneer could well have been flying around long before the aircraft were – ‘Buccaneer’ was definitely painted on some of the pre-production batch of NA39s, before the name was official (April 1960). The DH110 had been born in 1948 and the Buccaneer in 1954, while the RN only decided to order the DH110 in 1955. Vaguely possible that the Buccaneer/Pirate names originated at the same time, well after the DH110 had already been unofficially known as the Sea Vixen…

A Seamew is another name for Seagull and yes should be saidas Sea-Mew. Same naming policy as Gannet, Fulmar etc.

So, where did Seamew come from (what’s a mew 😀 ?)

Roger Smith.

Don’t quote me but I believe it’s another name for a Mew Gull – there was also a Curtiss Seamew I think.

Seafang – no idea. Sounds a bit like Seafire and Seaspite, Seaful or Seaspiteful don’t really work…

So, where did Seamew come from (what’s a mew 😀 ?)
Roger Smith.

…. or for that matter, ‘Seafang’ …… 😮

So, where did Seamew come from (what’s a mew 😀 ?)

Roger Smith.

The Admiralty apparently favoured ‘Pirate’ for the Sea Vixen, as it would have matched the Buccaneer, but DH were allowed to call it the Sea Vixen…

Seems unlikely. According to Thunder & Lightnings (‘cos it’s a lot quicker than going to look at some books) the Sea Vixen had been in squadron service for 3 years before the Buccaneer was officially named.

This is only my take on it, but I thought the ‘Sea’ prefix was only used on fighters designed for the RN:

Unless there was a switch in policy after the war that I’m unaware of, it’s the other way round – that way there was, as I said, ‘Skua, Osprey, Roc, Fulmar’ that were designed for the RN* and ‘Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Sea Mosquito, Sea Vampire’ etc that were based on existing landplanes.

The Admiralty apparently favoured ‘Pirate’ for the Sea Vixen, as it would have matched the Buccaneer, but DH were allowed to call it the Sea Vixen – I suspect because the name ‘Vixen’ had been been unofficially applied by DH to the RAF all-weather fighter variant, and the naval variant was already widely being referred to as the Sea Vixen.

*I appreciate that the Fulmar started life as the Fairey P.4/34 light bomber for the RAF, but it lost that competition and was not named before being offered by Fairey to the Air Ministry and redeveloped into an interim naval fighter.

The Wyvern was being considered as a long range naval fighter and torpedo bomber as early as September 1944 – it is referred to, though not by name, in a summary of naval air operations to the War Cabinet, so it’s not fair to consider this as an aircraft designed for the RAF. In fact it was probably a Navy-only project by the time it was named.

Maybe when naming the successor to the Fulmar, the Air Ministry could not think of a seabird starting with the letter F? Firefly sounded nice so they went with that. Firebrand and Firecrest sounded nice matches so they ran with them too. Wyvern fitted the Westland house style, coming after the Welkin.

Firefly and Firebrand originated to the same (or rather ‘partner’) specifications – N.8/39 for a two-seat fighter and N.9/39 for a turret fighter. The specs were revised markedly to a single-seater and a two seater based on the same airframe, but kept the same spec numbers. Bizarrely the RN ended ended up with two different designs, including a single seater that was much bigger than it needed to be. Obviously the Firebrand became operational later than the Firefly but began development at the same time. I’ve a feeling it even entered squadron service before the Firefly – though this was with a second line service trials squadron, initially using the strictly non-operational (Sabre engined) MkIs, MkIIs and (Centaurus) MkIIIs.

Firecrest was an unofficial Blackburn name that reflected the aircraft’s origins in the Firebrand design. Given that the aircraft was long past any Air Ministry interest by the time it flew, it’s unlikely that much official interest in naming it was taken.

Vampire, Venom and Vixen were all similar designs so got similar names, Same as with Buckingham and Buckmaster.

Indeed – DH seems to have liked the ‘V’ of Vampire (beats ‘Spider Crab’, though this was only ever a ‘codename’ to ensure secrecy) and carried it through its twin boom range. The Buckingham-Buckmaster is akin to the Beaufort-Beaufighter though as the Buckmaster was simply a trainer version of the Buckingham. The strike fighter version was called the Brigand though – partly I imagine as its origins weren’t so clear cut as the Beaufighter’s, and no doubt because ‘Buckfighter’ would have been too awful for words…

Maybe when naming the successor to the Fulmar, the Air Ministry could not think of a seabird starting with the letter F? Firefly sounded nice so they went with that. Firebrand and Firecrest sounded nice matches so they ran with them too. Wyvern fitted the Westland house style, coming after the Welkin.

Javelin, Sabre, Scimitar also seem good matches. Its interesting that Scimitar (and Javelin?) follows from a US named aircraft, the Sabre. Were there any other examples of this?

Also, the theme of things that wizz through the air didn’t drop out of use with the end of the war: Whirlwind -> Hurricane -> Tornado -> Meteor -> Lightning etc.

Vampire, Venom and Vixen were all similar designs so got similar names, Same as with Buckingham and Buckmaster.

Best wishes
Steve P

This is only my take on it, but I thought the ‘Sea’ prefix was only used on fighters designed for the RN, the Attacker and Wyvern were both originally built to RAF requirements and specs.
As you point out, both were very different by the time they got to FAA use (certainly as much as the Seafire was), but I wonder if the names were given much earlier when initial serials and production was being sorted out?
Of course this would then make the Scimitar the odd one out!:confused:

I believe that both Victor and Valiant were names proposed for Spitfire variants – in fact types that in the end were simply designated marks of Spitfire, IIRC the MkXVIII and Mk21. I presume these names came about to alliterate with ‘Vickers’ (whose previous non-Supermarine fighter design was called the Venom, another name resurrected in the jet age).

Whilst there appears to have been quite a strict naming policy for bombers and transport aircraft, and lend-lease types, this doesn’t seem to have been the case for British fighters or attack aircraft. Manufacturers seem to have had much more freedom – i.e. Hawker had their ‘winds’ theme, DH went with a thematically appropriate ‘Mosquito’ and Bristol was allowed to name the fighter derivative of the Beaufort an alliterative ‘Beaufighter’.

The Fleet Air Arm had its policy of seabirds for fighters (Osprey, Skua, Fulmar – not adopted for Roc) which then changed briefly to ‘fire’ themes for fighters developed after the outbreak of war (Firefly, Firebrand), with ‘Sea’ prefixes only for aircraft that had land-based forebears – Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire. The strict-ish policy seemed to break down somewhat after the war, seemingly being left to manufacturers. DH continued with its ‘V’ theme with the Sea Vixen and Supermarine with its alliterative Scimitar and seemingly random Attacker. Interestingly, there seems to have been little logic to the ‘Sea’ prefix postwar. The Sea Fury, Sea Hawk and Sea Vixen were all aircraft designed with the RAF in mind, but so was the Attacker, which did not have a ‘Sea’ attached, nor did the Wyvern (which was considered to naval and RAF specs simultanously but only reached hardware stage as a naval aircraft).

But what the hell happened with Hawker with the Fury, Typhoon, Tempest (I do get the storm link, but no alliteration)?

They were named after winds, the naming convention at the time, as indeed was the Auster

I wonder if a name was ever proposed for the Armstrong Whitworth AW.23 which was a ‘bomber/transport’?? (only one built).

The design for spec C.26/31 didn’t progress very far and lost out to the Bristol Bombay (this name falls in neatly with a place within the UK empire and sounds good for a Bristol-see my previous post). It did go on to form the basis of the Whitley though.
Handley Page also submitted a design, this was developed in to the Harrow (again a place name, and sounds right for HP design).

All three of these designs were unusual in being primarily transport aircraft with a lesser bombing role.

One interesting point your post raises, is at which point was the name thought up and applied. My guess is at the meeting when production was ordered?

As for possible name, Armstrong Whitworth Arbroath sound neat to me!

I wonder if a name was ever proposed for the Armstrong Whitworth AW.23 which was a ‘bomber/transport’?? (only one built).

Roger Smith.

Seriously? honouring Sir Stifford – well, well, I’d never have guessed at that.

Given his unfortunate wartime nick-name, Sir Stafford was probably not the best person to have been honoured in this way. I will not speculate as to what the bomb load would have been. 😮

Best wishes
Steve P

among the names considered were ‘Stafford’ (in honour of Sir Stafford Cripps)

Seriously? honouring Sir Stifford – well, well, I’d never have guessed at that. Looks like I need a copy of the book too! Good job there are a few second hand copies on line.

The book has an interesting bit on the AM dialog when naming the Lincoln – among the names considered were ‘Stafford’ (in honour of Sir Stafford Cripps) and Sandringham – and a caveat that, when the next new aircraft requires a name, they “ought not to forget that England is not the only Country in these Islands”

Thanks Dave, thats very interesting. I’ll have to chase up a copy of the book.

Best wishes
Steve P

Beverley and Hastings were post-war (as was the Devon) and I’ve no idea what naming conventions were stated then.

The same as earlier, none of the transports were named after counties, but named after well known cities/towns within counties or regions of the UK and Empire, Victoria, Harrow, York, Valletta (though iffy spelling!), Beverley, Hastings and Andover. All of these names also suit the manufacturer and fit in with other designs name wise, Vickers, Handley Page, Avro, Vickers, Blackburn, Handley Page and Avro. Some also sit nicely with similar designs by same companies, Vimy, Heyford, Lancaster, and Varsity as examples.

Other transports wer essentially bought of the shelf and kept their civil names, though ended up with differences to civil build. Viking, Comet, Britannia, 748, VC-10, being good examples. One oddity for me though is the Argosy, which was very different in its RAF form.

The Devon was a small communications type , same as Pembroke. Again both also sound right for their parent builder, De Havilland and Percival.

“York” fitted in perfectly well with Avro’s house style though. Too good a name for the Air Ministry to ignore? The Air Ministry were writing the rules, so could bend them when the need arose.

Best wishes
Steve P

Tend to agree – natural companion to the Lancaster. The book has an interesting bit on the AM dialog when naming the Lincoln – among the names considered were ‘Stafford’ (in honour of Sir Stafford Cripps) and Sandringham – and a caveat that, when the next new aircraft requires a name, they “ought not to forget that England is not the only Country in these Islands”

“York” fitted in perfectly well with Avro’s house style though. Too good a name for the Air Ministry to ignore? The Air Ministry were writing the rules, so could bend them when the need arose.

Best wishes
Steve P